The two sides of the same coin

Lula, the self acclaimed “new third world leader” has warmly received against the will of the majority of the Brazilian people who has literacy enough to understand what and where Iran is, his “comrade” from Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“If Iran is an important actor in this discord, then it is important that someone sits with Iran, talks with Iran and tries to establish a balancing point, so that society returns to a certain normality in the Middle East,” said Lula according the NYT and all the international press.

So, finally, we can see how an ignorant, arrogant and definitely an opportunist low politician as Lula (yes, he sure is low and dirty with a legendary history of treason amongst his native “comrades) drops the mask of being “the guy”, acclaimed by the ingenuity of Obama in a G-20 Summit and shows that he has no limits to his ambitions of being a “world leader”.

Brazilians Protesting the Visit

The visit of Iran’s dictator is an embarrassment to millions of Brazilian women, homosexuals, Brazilian Jewish and all democrats in general but a chance to show that in the dirty game of power at any cost, Lula wins by far. By being a hypocrite, unscrupulous “comrade” who embraces one of the most sanguinary and disgusting person who ever lived? Hopefully, this will help to show the real nature of the beast.

Obama, please be careful before saying that anyone is “the guy” once again. Everybody, be aware that “the guy” has long knives as another Austrian popular politician who dominated Germany did have back in the 30’s and is no saint at all.

Lula, the pacifier! It’s laughable coming from the man who cannot pacify the favelas (slums) of Rio de Janeiro.

PS: A person carrying the Rainbow Flag inside the conference hall where the Iranian dictator is staying has been arrested by the Brazilian Federal Police. The Jewish community has been barred from the press conferences. Supposedly due to the lack of security to the dictator, the conference was called off at 23:17 GMT. The Brazilian Presidency denied it but Lula reaffirmed the support for “pacific use” of nuclear energy by Iran.

Advertisements

Online Content Production: the law of silence

While pushing forward the endeavour of gathering information from all sources to follow the series of articles relating to State provided subsidies, I have tumbled against a wall made out of tough steel and concrete: silence. If was my purpose to question policy makers, directors of audiovisual institutions, institutes of cinematography as well as filmmakers, directors, producers, distributors, actors, etc .etc.

The task would not be easy to start; I suspected that already, but with rare exceptions I was rebuffed as if I were a thief or at least a poisonous threat to the status quo of their jobs and life earnings. Without going further naming names, Cultural Authorities of different European States and Latin American countries, after reading (or not) this small blog, simply denied flatly to give any sort of interview by email, phone or whatever means offered. The position is that the law is the law and questioning these laws is unlawful. Waving the flag of the law as if those had no relation whatsoever to the reality and fairness to the people. I have to remind these ladies and gentlemen that once upon a time, slavery was also lawful and it was unlawful to question it. Would anyone dare to do it now?

Few producers came forward (some of them bravely offering to make their names and positions public) but yet, the absolutely majority simply would not discuss the issues of digital distribution, subsidies for online production and the new reality of content production for the Internet (broadband) era. No interest for pretty obvious reasons.

But why all the fear and self imposed law of silence? What evil can be brought upon humanity to talk about what is already reality, a given fact?

In order to clarify the situation, to open a call for all the interested parts to answer questions the society itself is posing and the public authorities and the others refusing to answer, I’ve decided to make public the questions I sent to them. Four simple questions that remain without answers:

1) Considering that the numbers of online viewers of audiovisual contents multiply, at least, ten times the number of movie theatres audiences in each and every country, is it fair to have the State (which should represent the interests of the people) subsidise film productions with a non-negotiable condition that the films shall be presented and released in movie theatres?

2) Why do you insist to impose criteria that are not up-to-date with the public’s interests ignoring their own culture consumption habits?

3) While audiovisual works available for free to all users are ignored by the public authorities and denied subsidies while audiovisual works intended for theatre or TV releases which constitute under all lights the construction of private propriety (copyright and commercial exploitation) with public funds- continues to be hailed by the state cultural authorities as the only valid option. Don’t you plan to revaluate this unfair situation and leverage to the real world situation of the cultural consumers of your respective countries introducing a fair system of public subsidies?

4) The public has the right to decide when, how and which cultural product wish to use. And in fact, they have done it already. Don’t you consider that the public funds spent in cultural production must reflect the public demand? And given that situation, leverage the social players in fairness, namely the creators/authors/producers of online content?

It is absolutely comprehensible that people will ignore reality as far as they see it possible in order to keep their own status and privileges. My question is: until when will possible to remain in denial?